What accounts for the divergent and intriguing results observed in this recent research? Although within-person analyses appear to be essential to reveal the negative self-efficacy effect, it seems untenable to conclude that all positive effects of self-efficacy on performance observed in the vast body of existing research are little more than artifacts of between-persons methodology. As Bandura and Locke (2003) noted, the voluminous research on self-efficacy has utilized varied methodologies, including designs in which self-efficacy was experimentally altered both between persons and within persons. With few exceptions, these studies have found self-efficacy to positively relate to subsequent performance. These results, when considered alongside those reported by Vancouver and colleagues (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006; Vancouver et al., 2002, 2001), highlight the variable nature of the self-efficacy and performance relationship, as both positive and negative relationships have been observed even among studies conducted at the within-person level of analysis.
Psychological egoism is a theory that suggests that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. The theory claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves stand to gain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. Psychological egoism is a non-normative or descriptive theory in that it only makes claims about how things are and not how they ought to be. The theory is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism. The following essay seeks to determine the plausibility of psychological egoism as a theory of ethics by presenting possible arguments for and against it.
Huang (2001) said that these codes are crucial for public relations to be granted a status as a bona-fide profession. The codes strive to give guidance to public relation practitioners in order to help them to act in a practical and professional manner. However even though these codes are fashioned to satisfy universal conditions and principles (Kruckeberg, 1993), many scholars like (Parkinson, 2001; Wright, 1993) voiced out their opinion that the codes fall short of the ideas promoted in the codes, or even being internally conflicting. Many other practitioners have also voiced their opinion that the code of ethics is too vague to be useful, and that it does not give enough specifications (Bowen,
A study by Fishbach, Eyal, and Finkelstein (2010) suggests that positive and negative feedback possess advantages which are only present in specific circumstances. Their study purports to identify certain circumstances when a positive or a negative feedback is more effective in motivating goal pursuit. Different factors are identified in the said study such as the signal the feedback conveys, the affective experience it produces, the social agents that can give feedback strategically, and the question of whether people seek feedback. A feedback can convey two things: (a) it can enable the individuals to become aware of their level of commitment they possess towards their tasks, and (b) it can enable the individuals to become mindful of their progress on their goals. Fishbach et al.
Abstract In this research paper, it was interesting to take a different path and look at the benefits of unethical leadership for an organization’s performance (OP). Thus I looked at to what extent can unethical leadership lead to positive OP? This was established by using a connector, being the employee’s motivation. Thus we looked at one type of motivational factor, being the earning premium motivator, and hypothesized that ‘If an unethical leader has a positive relationship to EPM , and EPM has a positive relationship with OP, then unethical leadership must have a positive relationship with OP’. The methodology was based firstly on two questionnaires to measure: the leadership style, and the ‘pay-satisfaction’ mean and secondly, the annual
Functional theories of emotion mention that emotions motivate and drive behavior of the individual (Frijda, 1986). Snyder (2002) proposes that emotions resulting from the perception of success or failure of one’s pursuits towards personal goals will be colored by the perception one has towards the goals. Positive (negative) perceptions hence, will lead to positive (negative) emotions. Furthermore, he explains that the dispositional hope of these individuals will further aid or deter them from pursuing the goal in mind. For example, if an individual perceives that meeting a certain goal is difficult because of impediments/deterrents, the resulting emotion will be stressful, and, the capability to deal with the stress thence produced will be determined by the initial dispositional hope of the individual.
Observing the successes of others similar to oneself provides positively to self-efficacy while the exact opposite is also true – observing the failures of others similar to oneself may lessen self-efficacy. Another source of self-efficacy is social or verbal persuasion. Social persuasion is the words of encouragement or moral support from others regarding one’s performance that may transform one’s perceptions of efficacy. Self-efficacy can be persuaded if told by others that they have what it takes to succeed. Self-efficacy can also be weakened if told by others they do not acquire the proficiencies for success.
Typically, self-efficacy is heightened in a positive emotional state and dropped in a negative emotional state. These impacts are affected by four mental processes: affective, cognitive; motivational; and selection Bandura (1997). Motivation can influence efficacy through the establishment of goals, while the ability to control negative emotional judgments and to enhance positive thoughts also has a strong impact on efficacy beliefs. Cognitive processes can heighten or restrain the performance on the task through self-appraisal of one’s capabilities. And lastly, selection refers to the choices persons make based on their efficacy perspectives.
Existential psychologist, Rollo May, saw it as being authoritarian in nature, in that it maintains that all problems have clear solutions and that Frankl simply provides patients with meaning if they can’t pinpoint their own. However, Frankl maintained that logotherapy teaches patients about their responsibility, rather than taking authority from them. (https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/logotherapy). Some argue that the concepts which are at the core of logotherapy, namely meanings and values, are simply defence mechanisms and reaction formation. Frankl argued that one would not be willing to live or die for the sake of one’s defence mechanisms, but countless people have done so for the sake of meaning, thus meaning can’t simply be a defence mechanism.
I think that this research by Snyder & lopez is particularly relevant to Simons case as. It is widely assumed that procrastination is related to low self-esteem, either as a determinant or a consequence. However, there is a negative correlation assumed to be between self-esteem and procrastination. SEF theory says that what we believe about ourselves strongly influences our task choice, level of effort and